Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
I'd take Colt a lot more seriously if the quality of its revolvers hadn't fallen through the floor.
Colt Sues Bushmaster & H&K
- Thread starter dischord
- Start date
- Status
Penforhire
Member
Trade marks are only enforceable if the holder pursues timely enforcement. If Colt allowed the trade mark to be used by others for years they will fail in their lawsuit. If this is a response to newly marketed use of trade mark then Colt is only doing what it should do to protect the mark.
madmike
Member
Here's the catch: The military can't trademark the designation M4.
BUT COLT CAN, as a product name.
So no one else can make an "M4" that ALSO looks like the Colt M4. H&Kcould make an M4 on a G3 frame and be fine. But if it looks like a Colt and has the name, legal case.
Of course, the basic patent for the AR-15 is public domain, so anyone can build a rifle on it. You can build a carbine either buy buying Colt parts or licensing them or making your own to DIFFERENT SPECS.
That specific barrel contour is a kicker, and the specific stock. Change those and it's a different profile.
I can't speak to the internal parts, save that both M-16 and M-4 weapons are covered in TM-9-1005-319-10 and are identical for takedown and maintenance. So a minor profile change of any proprietary pieces would suffice. You can't trademark the gas timing or such--the laws of physics are public domain, too.
But Colt is just pissy because of all those civilian sales they refuse to make, and foreign sales that are waaaaay overpriced.
Oh, the XM8 is a piece of crap. Don't look for it to replace anything anytime soon. More bugs from the factory than the Army managed to put INTO the M16 in 1967.
The earliest AR carbine I'm aware of was 1959, 10" barrel, fixed tubular stock, 2 finger pistol grip, 20 round magazines, as a pilot bailout weapon under SAC. From there, the Air Police got it (as a rifle), then the Green Beanies, SEALs, Ghurkas, SAS, Rhos, Singapore special forces, IDF special units...
no one had any trouble until the Army @#$ it over in 1967.
Ah, the old Armalite. Brilliant engineering, idiotic sales.
BUT COLT CAN, as a product name.
So no one else can make an "M4" that ALSO looks like the Colt M4. H&Kcould make an M4 on a G3 frame and be fine. But if it looks like a Colt and has the name, legal case.
Of course, the basic patent for the AR-15 is public domain, so anyone can build a rifle on it. You can build a carbine either buy buying Colt parts or licensing them or making your own to DIFFERENT SPECS.
That specific barrel contour is a kicker, and the specific stock. Change those and it's a different profile.
I can't speak to the internal parts, save that both M-16 and M-4 weapons are covered in TM-9-1005-319-10 and are identical for takedown and maintenance. So a minor profile change of any proprietary pieces would suffice. You can't trademark the gas timing or such--the laws of physics are public domain, too.
But Colt is just pissy because of all those civilian sales they refuse to make, and foreign sales that are waaaaay overpriced.
Oh, the XM8 is a piece of crap. Don't look for it to replace anything anytime soon. More bugs from the factory than the Army managed to put INTO the M16 in 1967.
The earliest AR carbine I'm aware of was 1959, 10" barrel, fixed tubular stock, 2 finger pistol grip, 20 round magazines, as a pilot bailout weapon under SAC. From there, the Air Police got it (as a rifle), then the Green Beanies, SEALs, Ghurkas, SAS, Rhos, Singapore special forces, IDF special units...
no one had any trouble until the Army @#$ it over in 1967.
Ah, the old Armalite. Brilliant engineering, idiotic sales.
Several respected members over at www.tacticalforums.com have opined that both the HKM4 (likely the target of this lawsuit) and the XM8 are very reliably ergonomic weapons.
http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bin/tacticalubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=56;t=000724;p=1
Ignoring the legality of the charge for a moment, I don't wish to cast judgement, the charge may be legal, but the motivation is less than honest.
One assumption, based on reasonable evidence presented above: the H&K G36/XM8/HKM4 system is more reliable than the M16/M4 system.
A few facts:
Colt's contract expires soon.
The 5.56mm has been criticized since inception.
The M16 has been criticized since adoption.
The HKM4 is similar in name to the M4. (and was a STUPID thing for H&K to do)
The XM8 is identical in operation to the HKM4, but without the weight.
A new contract for a new US military rifle would be worth a LOT of money.
H&K and Colt would BOTH like that contract.
If Colt sued *only* H&K their suit would be an *obvious* business manuever.
If Colt sued H&K and Bushmaster, it appears they are protecting a copyright.
The 6.8X43 cartridge, and the G36/XM8/HKM4 gas-system would solve the two biggest criticisms of the M16 series, while reducing weight back to original AR specs.
Colt has got NOTHING that performs like the G36 derived weapons (polymer, better gas system).
The Military has been playing with the H&K G36 weapons for sometime now, particularly in the OICW weapon system.
This leads to the conclusion that Colt's lawsuit is due to their inability to produce a weapon that can compete with H&K products.
H&K's introduction of their high-reliability M4/M16 magazine further highlights the complete inability of Colt to attempt to improve their cash cow at all, which is frequently criticized for its poor magazines.
-Morgan
http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bin/tacticalubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=56;t=000724;p=1
Ignoring the legality of the charge for a moment, I don't wish to cast judgement, the charge may be legal, but the motivation is less than honest.
One assumption, based on reasonable evidence presented above: the H&K G36/XM8/HKM4 system is more reliable than the M16/M4 system.
A few facts:
Colt's contract expires soon.
The 5.56mm has been criticized since inception.
The M16 has been criticized since adoption.
The HKM4 is similar in name to the M4. (and was a STUPID thing for H&K to do)
The XM8 is identical in operation to the HKM4, but without the weight.
A new contract for a new US military rifle would be worth a LOT of money.
H&K and Colt would BOTH like that contract.
If Colt sued *only* H&K their suit would be an *obvious* business manuever.
If Colt sued H&K and Bushmaster, it appears they are protecting a copyright.
The 6.8X43 cartridge, and the G36/XM8/HKM4 gas-system would solve the two biggest criticisms of the M16 series, while reducing weight back to original AR specs.
Colt has got NOTHING that performs like the G36 derived weapons (polymer, better gas system).
The Military has been playing with the H&K G36 weapons for sometime now, particularly in the OICW weapon system.
This leads to the conclusion that Colt's lawsuit is due to their inability to produce a weapon that can compete with H&K products.
H&K's introduction of their high-reliability M4/M16 magazine further highlights the complete inability of Colt to attempt to improve their cash cow at all, which is frequently criticized for its poor magazines.
-Morgan
madmike
Member
The M-8 uses the AR-18 operating mechanism, not the AR-15 gas system.
The OICW grenades are proving to be very unreliable on their fusing, and the 10" barrel on the carbine attachment makes the 5.56 totally worthless against anyone in armor. The G-36 is an adequate weapon. I've handled one. I don't find any significant improvements over the AR-15. Hell, the root weapon came from the same designer--Stoner.
EVERY weapon is criticized from inception. An examination of battlefield casualty reports shows, however, that 5.56 is more effective than 7.62 at ranges less than 500m, which is to say, 98% of combat conditions.
ball ammo has totally different characteristics than soft point. If we could use soft point 7.62, the rules would be totally different. But we can't. 5.56 has better energy transfer, meaning better trauma. If you hit a critical target--heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, central nervous system, it doesn't matter what you use.
Sorry, but in 19 years I have had ONE failure to feed from a bad magazine, ONE case fail to extract for unknown reasons. I've used some of the oldest, filthiest weapons out there. I've fixed some of the oldest, filthiest weapons out there. I've put hundreds of thousands of live and carbony blank ammo through M-16s and ARs.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: if you had problems with the M-16 after 1967 (when the Army "fixed" it and then had to fix it), the problem is almost always operator error. And 5.56 is more than enough to critically disable an opponent. Even the Sovs copied it for 5.45. All the complaints I heard where from people with no knowledge of physics whining, "But it's oooonly a twenty-two!"
Yup. And 9mm is .38. Therefore it's better, right?
Size isn't everything, especially with weapons. You CAN have too much weapon.
As to 6.8, I will happily use it when it comes out, both because it's a good round, and because I want military standard for convenience and economy. Ironically, THAT was the round the Brits had in the EM-2 in 1952. But "It's oooonly a 7mm!" whiners in the Pentagon crammed the "full power, .30 caliber, MANLY chest-thumping, 2000 yard, volley-fire, just like we won the Ardennes with!" crap down NATO's throat.
None of them knew ballistics either. Look up Stephen Benet and the trapdoor rifle. We're always commanded by idiots in procurement. Occasionally, a genius slips something past them.
Think about the 1:7 rifling on the A-2. Nonsensical for real use, fits one very unimportant criteria. So we have it. If I were one of the grunts deploying up front instead of a nearly retired REMF, I'd buy a 1:9 upper to attach and just not tell anyone. I might even persuade my unit armorer to buy them for the unit from slush funds. Along with HC bolt carriers.
Someday, the perfect weapon will come along. And you know what? The Army will #$^%$% that up, too.
BTW: retained energy at 400 meters for a 5.56 runs 400-700 ft lbs. More than twice that of a 9mm, more than a .357.
#1 the XM8 is subtley different from the AR-18.
#2 the HKM4 is NOT an M4, it does not use the M4's direct gas system, rather it is an upper that functions almost identically to the XM8:
http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bin/tacticalubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=56;t=000724#000000
The OICW *does* suck. This is not debated, but the army there chose the H&K for their "kinetic" portion, why? They could have used a Colt for that, but decided not to, why? Maybe cause they were considering it anyway? Nah, couldn't be.
The G36 is: more reliable, and lighter in weight than the M16 and its derivatives. The M16 is more reliable than it is given credit for, but is still not as reliable as the G36 and its derivatives, perhaps we're splitting hairs here, 1 jam per 10,000 rounds versus 1 jam per 25,000 rounds may not win wars, but it'd sure make me feel better.
The G36 is NOT the AR-18. Close, but not quite.
This is rather irrelevent, as no one was discussing going back to the 7.62, but the cause is mostly the result of bullets used. Using similar bullets, the 7.62 is significantly superior in terminal effects to the 5.56: take a 7.62 that fragments like the original 55gr 5.56 (such as the W. German load), and compare them; the 7.62 is more deadly. Take a 7.62 that is designed identically to the SS109 bullet, and compare them; the 7.62 will be more deadly. Take a 7.62 ballistic tip, and a 5.56 ballistic tip, and compare them; the 7.62 is more deadly. Further, in all cases the 7.62 will penetrate more intermediate barriers.
Comparing a FMJ non-fragmenting 7.62 to a fragmenting 5.56 is an unfair comparison that is inappropriate in comparisons of *cartridges* as opposed to the bulets that they fire. For a fair comparison you should use similarly designed bullets.
To say that the only way that the 7.62 can compare to the 5.56 is if we allow soft-pointed bullets is yet another incorrect statement that falsely places the advantage to the 5.56. In the two cases where similar bullet designs exist (fragmenting FMJ, and ballistic tips) the 7.62 is superior, in one of those cases, the 7.62 is military legal. In the third hypothetical case the 7.62 is very, very likely to be superior if a similarly designed bullet were used, and it would also be military legal, though the lefties would still wine about it.
But it isn't *about* the 7.62, the 6.8 has less recoil than the 7.62, and more potential for wounding than the 5.56 In the heavier loadings (75, 77gr) the 5.56 does work *much* better than it does in current loadings, but these heavier loadings are maxing out the available performance in this cartridge, to get better performance one has to move to a more powerful cartrdige.
Granted, but I said "since" inception, there's a difference. The criticism of the M16 has not ceased, it has abated, but it has not ceased.
There are others who feel similarly, indeed the M16 is more reliable than it is given credit for according to many persons who have used it in harms way. The point I sited was that the M16 had been criticized. The problem is a lack of confidence in the weapon system, rather than whether that criticism, or lack of confidence is justified.
I actually have a rather solid background in physics and wound ballistics. The .223 with good loads is adequate, but the 6.8, and the 7.62 with the same bullet design, are both better. Incidentially, the Russian 5.45 sucks due to their failure to design a bullet which was weak at the cannelure. Which has nothing to do with the cartridge sucking per se, just the bullet.
There is little debate that the Army's insistance on the .30 Caliber rifle in both the 1930's and the 1950's was a mistake.
I fail to see the problem with the 1:7 twist. It is my understanding that a problem only exists in the case of having too slow a twist, as opposed to one that is too fast. From a military standpoint, I'd want a little bit of extra insurance in my barrel twist as I am more likely to encounter a wide variety of atmospheric densities. Further the faster twist would let me make use of the heavier 75gr, and 100gr loads which perform better.
Finally, I fail to see the relevance of the 5.56 having more retained energy than the 9mm and the .357, these are both pistol rounds and neither I, nor anyone I know, has ever advocated their replacing the 5.56
-Morgan
Back on Topic Please
Ok guys, we're in Legal and Political, talking about a lawsuit. Let's not open the M16 vs. XM8 debate again here. Take that over to rifles and discuss it there.
Jeff
Ok guys, we're in Legal and Political, talking about a lawsuit. Let's not open the M16 vs. XM8 debate again here. Take that over to rifles and discuss it there.
Jeff
madmike
Member
Ammo debate taken to IM, thanks for the clarification RE: HKM4
As to the suit, I have some experience with intellectual property.
If they're suing, it means a cease and desist order failed.
So H&K and Bushie are hoping to keep producing M4geries until a court stops them, and that the legal costs will be surpassed by the profit.
Colt HAS to sue if they're aware of a violation of patent or trademark, or they lose protection.
Two examples: Kipling's estate is still under (c) in the US. But so many people have quoted him for so long, there's no way the agent could win a case. They've EFFECTIVELY let it become PD--Public Domain.
ASCAP (American Society of Composers, Arrangers and Performers) sued the Girl Scouts several years ago, over them performing (c) songs at public functions.
Hold on....
It was settled out of court. For $1 a year, the GSA can perform all the songs ASCAP administers that they want to. It wasn't about money--no one wanted to dun the Girl Scouts for royalties. It's about RIGHTS.
So when some "non profit" anti-gun or anti-whatever group tries to have a "Non profit" fundraiser by performing songs, if they say, "The Girl Scouts have been performing those songs for YEARS without you stopping them!" ASCAP can say, "We have a license agreement with them. Now feel our lawyer."
Colt isn't doing this out of greed. They HAVE to protect anything they legally claim, or let everyone and his brother do it.
This is why I tromp on people who use my "Amazing Beliefs" and other articles without crediting me. I don't need any $$$. I DO need to be credited as the originator to maintain legal control of it.
As to the suit, I have some experience with intellectual property.
If they're suing, it means a cease and desist order failed.
So H&K and Bushie are hoping to keep producing M4geries until a court stops them, and that the legal costs will be surpassed by the profit.
Colt HAS to sue if they're aware of a violation of patent or trademark, or they lose protection.
Two examples: Kipling's estate is still under (c) in the US. But so many people have quoted him for so long, there's no way the agent could win a case. They've EFFECTIVELY let it become PD--Public Domain.
ASCAP (American Society of Composers, Arrangers and Performers) sued the Girl Scouts several years ago, over them performing (c) songs at public functions.
Hold on....
It was settled out of court. For $1 a year, the GSA can perform all the songs ASCAP administers that they want to. It wasn't about money--no one wanted to dun the Girl Scouts for royalties. It's about RIGHTS.
So when some "non profit" anti-gun or anti-whatever group tries to have a "Non profit" fundraiser by performing songs, if they say, "The Girl Scouts have been performing those songs for YEARS without you stopping them!" ASCAP can say, "We have a license agreement with them. Now feel our lawyer."
Colt isn't doing this out of greed. They HAVE to protect anything they legally claim, or let everyone and his brother do it.
This is why I tromp on people who use my "Amazing Beliefs" and other articles without crediting me. I don't need any $$$. I DO need to be credited as the originator to maintain legal control of it.
HK has removed reference to the HKM4 from their website. I understand that one of Colt's complaints against HK is that they signed a non-disclosure agreement when they looked at all of Colt's property when they were looking at buying Colt's.
IMHO this is no different then any other company suing to protect a name or trademark. There are all kinds of precedents where people using trademarked names in totally unrelated businesses have been forced to stop and even pay damages. My money is on Colt's especially given the precedent that already exists from the FNMI vs.U'S' Govt. suit.
Jeff
IMHO this is no different then any other company suing to protect a name or trademark. There are all kinds of precedents where people using trademarked names in totally unrelated businesses have been forced to stop and even pay damages. My money is on Colt's especially given the precedent that already exists from the FNMI vs.U'S' Govt. suit.
Jeff
If it were just about protecting their rights, why didn't they hit up all the other companies that are producing AR-15 clones and M4geries before? Companies have been doing so for many, many years. Seems like they failed to sue the girlscouts, and are only going after the big fish.
Once again, I wholly support patent rights, Trademarks, etc. (I think some of them are given excessively long life, but that's another story) "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" Article I Section 8
So in that arena I side with Colt's actions. My claim is just that it would appear there's somethin' fishy goin' on, particularly given their failure to sue the other M4gery makers for all these years, and particularly given their weak position with respect to H&K.
-Morgan
Once again, I wholly support patent rights, Trademarks, etc. (I think some of them are given excessively long life, but that's another story) "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" Article I Section 8
So in that arena I side with Colt's actions. My claim is just that it would appear there's somethin' fishy goin' on, particularly given their failure to sue the other M4gery makers for all these years, and particularly given their weak position with respect to H&K.
-Morgan
Do any of the other AR manufacturers use M4 in the name of their product? I don't think that they do. M4, M4gery, and M4 clone are names the customer tagged any 16.1 or 14.5 inch barreled AR carbine with. I don't think that Armalite, DPMS or Olympic Arms call any of their products M4s.
HK did infact market the HKM4, used that designation prominately at SHOT and the NRA convention and even in paid advertising. I heard that Bushmaster sold thousands of M4 type carbines to the Royal Australian Army.
I don't think that Colt's would have any trouble adding the other manufacturers to the suit if they thought it was necessary.
Jeff
HK did infact market the HKM4, used that designation prominately at SHOT and the NRA convention and even in paid advertising. I heard that Bushmaster sold thousands of M4 type carbines to the Royal Australian Army.
I don't think that Colt's would have any trouble adding the other manufacturers to the suit if they thought it was necessary.
Jeff
madmike
Member
AS I said upstream: short barreled AR carbines have existed for 45 years, and the root patents are PD. ANYONE can build one.
If, however, you produce something with the outline and internal components specific to Colt AND call it an M4, you're in violation.
so, use a 14.5" barrel without the GL cut, use a different handguard, use a different pattern collapsible stock than the waffle-pattern Colt uses, change the buffer or bolt carrier slightly...a sufficient combination of any of those will suffice to make it "Just" an AR carbine.
But all the wannabes want that EXACT contour barrel (Which is weaker than a HB and useless to a civilian) just to look cool. And add in sales of an IDENTICAL product to what Colt researched, created and marketed and you have a pretty clear violation.
There are some smaller companies using the term "M4." My guess is either
A: they were sent C&D letters (Cease and Desist) and have done so, or
2] They aren't big enough for Colt to waste money suing, and aren't chasing foreign sales, so Colt will fight the two largest out of convenience, then let the message get out to the small fry.
If, however, you produce something with the outline and internal components specific to Colt AND call it an M4, you're in violation.
so, use a 14.5" barrel without the GL cut, use a different handguard, use a different pattern collapsible stock than the waffle-pattern Colt uses, change the buffer or bolt carrier slightly...a sufficient combination of any of those will suffice to make it "Just" an AR carbine.
But all the wannabes want that EXACT contour barrel (Which is weaker than a HB and useless to a civilian) just to look cool. And add in sales of an IDENTICAL product to what Colt researched, created and marketed and you have a pretty clear violation.
There are some smaller companies using the term "M4." My guess is either
A: they were sent C&D letters (Cease and Desist) and have done so, or
2] They aren't big enough for Colt to waste money suing, and aren't chasing foreign sales, so Colt will fight the two largest out of convenience, then let the message get out to the small fry.
Was unaware of the Australian sales, but did they use the word M4?
I think H&K is going to try and claim that HKM4 is different than M4, and further the engineering is significantly different. Whether they succeed or not, is going to be more subject to the decision of the court.
-Morgan
I think H&K is going to try and claim that HKM4 is different than M4, and further the engineering is significantly different. Whether they succeed or not, is going to be more subject to the decision of the court.
-Morgan
standingbear
Member
I agree with the earlier post..colt has catered to the military market and not to the civilian market and they have sat around on their behinds while H&k..bushmaster have put new products out on the open market thats as good as any colt and somewhat cheaper sometimes as well.yup..colt is mad and its their own fault.
madmike
Member
I agree, Bear. Colt are overpriced and have cut themselves out of a market.
Their legal position is a good one. But it is largely self-inflicted.
And besides, a Colt civvy M4 wouldn't be milspec anyway. Always amusing to see guys walking around at the gun show with "Colt preban, $1300."
"So, you interested."
"Why?"
They're just totally confused as to why someone wouldn't want a weapon that doesn't interchange with milspec.
"It's a COLT!"
"So?"
Their legal position is a good one. But it is largely self-inflicted.
And besides, a Colt civvy M4 wouldn't be milspec anyway. Always amusing to see guys walking around at the gun show with "Colt preban, $1300."
"So, you interested."
"Why?"
They're just totally confused as to why someone wouldn't want a weapon that doesn't interchange with milspec.
"It's a COLT!"
"So?"
Other manufacturers using M4....
Flipping through the May 3d issue of Shotgun News{/U] I've discovered that DSA Inc. calls their M4 clones the CV1 Carbine (post ban legal) and the LE4 Carbine (LEO only, collapsible stock, flash hider). ArmaLite calls their post ban legal version the Armalite SOF but says in it's advertising:
Is the above actionable? I don't know. It seems DSA is in the clear, none of their advertising text mentions M4. I'm not so sure about Armalite.
Model 1 offers M4A2 and M4A3 parts kits. I couldn't find any reference to M4 in American Spirit Arms' ad. Knights Manufacturing offers the SR-15 M4. J&T Distributing sells an M4 Carbine Kit. Olympic Arms offers the K3B-M4A3.
I don't know if the companies I've found were sent cease and desist letters, but it would seem that Colt's would have complaints against them too.
Jeff
Flipping through the May 3d issue of Shotgun News{/U] I've discovered that DSA Inc. calls their M4 clones the CV1 Carbine (post ban legal) and the LE4 Carbine (LEO only, collapsible stock, flash hider). ArmaLite calls their post ban legal version the Armalite SOF but says in it's advertising:
Is the above actionable? I don't know. It seems DSA is in the clear, none of their advertising text mentions M4. I'm not so sure about Armalite.
Model 1 offers M4A2 and M4A3 parts kits. I couldn't find any reference to M4 in American Spirit Arms' ad. Knights Manufacturing offers the SR-15 M4. J&T Distributing sells an M4 Carbine Kit. Olympic Arms offers the K3B-M4A3.
I don't know if the companies I've found were sent cease and desist letters, but it would seem that Colt's would have complaints against them too.
Jeff
madmike
Member
Nope. Colt specifically cuts the pivot pin hole on their civvy receivers with a non-standard size so ONLY Colt uppers and lowers will fit together, and with two screws instead of a push pin. They were trying to get away from the "military" context.
There are aftermarket pins cut to fit to resolve this, but why buy something from a company that clearly doesn't like you?
The lower is full of excess metal which DOES increase strength, however, its purpose is to make it harder to fit an auto sear in. All fine and dandy since most of us don't plan to do so anyway, but again, it's the attitude. And the bolt carrier is shaved so it won't work with an auto setup, thus reducing its mass. I assume this necessitates some small change to gas timing. I think they may have a proprietary hammer, trigger and disconnector, too.
So if you want to slap a standard upper of any kind on a standard lower of any kind, and strip the weapon for cleaning or maintenance in a hurry, Colt is not for you.
My Oly, PWA and Armalite are FAR nicer machine work than Colt puts out, anyway. They can keep it. Not to mention the outrageous prices they want.
"M4A2" is a military designation. Colt has not trademarked it. And they are parts kits only. "SR-15 M4" is not "Colt M4" so it may be a gray area. A "K3B-M4A3" is likewise not an "M4."
I'd guess if I tried to sell an "M4" and an "MZW M4" they'd only have a case against the former--the latter is obviously different in name.
J&T uses Colt barrels and Colt handguards in many of their kits, so Colt is making $$ there, and the components *ARE* "M4."
There are aftermarket pins cut to fit to resolve this, but why buy something from a company that clearly doesn't like you?
The lower is full of excess metal which DOES increase strength, however, its purpose is to make it harder to fit an auto sear in. All fine and dandy since most of us don't plan to do so anyway, but again, it's the attitude. And the bolt carrier is shaved so it won't work with an auto setup, thus reducing its mass. I assume this necessitates some small change to gas timing. I think they may have a proprietary hammer, trigger and disconnector, too.
So if you want to slap a standard upper of any kind on a standard lower of any kind, and strip the weapon for cleaning or maintenance in a hurry, Colt is not for you.
My Oly, PWA and Armalite are FAR nicer machine work than Colt puts out, anyway. They can keep it. Not to mention the outrageous prices they want.
"M4A2" is a military designation. Colt has not trademarked it. And they are parts kits only. "SR-15 M4" is not "Colt M4" so it may be a gray area. A "K3B-M4A3" is likewise not an "M4."
I'd guess if I tried to sell an "M4" and an "MZW M4" they'd only have a case against the former--the latter is obviously different in name.
J&T uses Colt barrels and Colt handguards in many of their kits, so Colt is making $$ there, and the components *ARE* "M4."
Mike,
FWIW Colt's trademarked both M4 and M16 for civilian use in 2003. And just so you know, there is no such thing as an M4A2 in the US Military. We have an M4 and an M4A1. The difference being the M4 is safe-semi-burst and the M4A1 is safe-semi-auto. The M4A1s now come with a full heavy barrel from the factory.
There are no civilan production MILSPEC M4s made by any manufacturer. A MILSPEC M4 would be safe-semi-burst along with all of the other specs and an M4A1 would be safe-semi-auto. The actual required features are found in MIL-C-70599A for the M4 and MIL-C-71186 for the M4A1.
Just for your information Colt's stopped using large pin receivers a few years years ago on their Match Target civilian line.
I'm not an attorney, never even played on in the school drama club, much less on TV but I think Colt's would have a case against any firearms manufacturer using the name M4 in any part of their advertising. The products are similar enough that it could cause confusion is what Colt's would argue. Since the government gave Colt's trademarks on M4 and M16, I don't think anyone can sell a rifle with M4 in the name if Colt's doesn't want them to.
Jeff
FWIW Colt's trademarked both M4 and M16 for civilian use in 2003. And just so you know, there is no such thing as an M4A2 in the US Military. We have an M4 and an M4A1. The difference being the M4 is safe-semi-burst and the M4A1 is safe-semi-auto. The M4A1s now come with a full heavy barrel from the factory.
There are no civilan production MILSPEC M4s made by any manufacturer. A MILSPEC M4 would be safe-semi-burst along with all of the other specs and an M4A1 would be safe-semi-auto. The actual required features are found in MIL-C-70599A for the M4 and MIL-C-71186 for the M4A1.
Just for your information Colt's stopped using large pin receivers a few years years ago on their Match Target civilian line.
I'm not an attorney, never even played on in the school drama club, much less on TV
but I think Colt's would have a case against any firearms manufacturer using the name M4 in any part of their advertising. The products are similar enough that it could cause confusion is what Colt's would argue. Since the government gave Colt's trademarks on M4 and M16, I don't think anyone can sell a rifle with M4 in the name if Colt's doesn't want them to.Jeff
madmike
Member
http://www.specwarnet.com/kit/m4.htm
M4 is burst
M4A1 is auto
M4A3 is flattop.
I can't recall the M4A2, but I saw them in Kuwait. Flattop auto? I think.
My TM-9-1005-319-10 Oct 1998 only mentions M4 and M4A1. But all four variations exist now, 6 years later.
Colt can't object to anything M4. There's an M4 bayonet and an M4 Sherman Tank as well as an M4 smoke canister and an M4 automobile. They can only object to an M4 rifle based on an AR receiver.
And previous case law (Muppet Babies vs competing Puppet Babies, Henson won) says you must have 10% difference.
So OAM4 vs M4 is 50% different, as I count it.
Ain't this a fun biz?
Thanks for the update on Colts. I wasn't even bothering to look at them to know they'd changed.
M4 is burst
M4A1 is auto
M4A3 is flattop.
I can't recall the M4A2, but I saw them in Kuwait. Flattop auto? I think.
My TM-9-1005-319-10 Oct 1998 only mentions M4 and M4A1. But all four variations exist now, 6 years later.
Colt can't object to anything M4. There's an M4 bayonet and an M4 Sherman Tank as well as an M4 smoke canister and an M4 automobile. They can only object to an M4 rifle based on an AR receiver.
And previous case law (Muppet Babies vs competing Puppet Babies, Henson won) says you must have 10% difference.
So OAM4 vs M4 is 50% different, as I count it.
Ain't this a fun biz?
Thanks for the update on Colts. I wasn't even bothering to look at them to know they'd changed.
Nightcrawler
Member
M4: Fixed carry handle, semi-burst trigger group
M4A1: Detachable carry handle, semi-auto trigger group.
Don't know about the M4A3; hadn't heard of it. Maybe the Army adopted a detachable carry handle model with a semi-burst trigger group.
M4A1: Detachable carry handle, semi-auto trigger group.
Don't know about the M4A3; hadn't heard of it. Maybe the Army adopted a detachable carry handle model with a semi-burst trigger group.
Mike,
I don't know where specwarnet.com get's their data, but it's not from the Army.
There is only an M4 and M4A1 in the system. The original M4 had a fixed carry handle. Only the prototype and on lot of M4s were delivered with the fixed carry handle. The M4A1 and all subsequent M4s were procured as flattops with removeable carry handles. The has yet to be an M4A2 or A3. Many civilian makers took to calling flattops A3s. However the military never did formally adopt that designation. In fact the flattop M16 is the A4. The A3 is identical to the A2 except for the fire control parts which are safe-semi-auto. FNMI has produced 7,480 M16A3s for the Navy.
I have TM9-1005-319-23&P current to change 8 (the last change out there) and it only lists the M4 and M4A1. This was correct at the time I retired from the Army last October.
As for the trademark issue. I think if Olympic Arms markets a K3B-M4A3 it would be actionable. How many times have other businesses forced a business that wasn't even a like business to stop using a trademark? While none srping immediately to mind, I seen to remember big corporations successfully defending names that were only similar and weren't even being used in a business that was competing. Totally different products IIRC.
Jeff
I don't know where specwarnet.com get's their data, but it's not from the Army.
There is only an M4 and M4A1 in the system. The original M4 had a fixed carry handle. Only the prototype and on lot of M4s were delivered with the fixed carry handle. The M4A1 and all subsequent M4s were procured as flattops with removeable carry handles. The has yet to be an M4A2 or A3. Many civilian makers took to calling flattops A3s. However the military never did formally adopt that designation. In fact the flattop M16 is the A4. The A3 is identical to the A2 except for the fire control parts which are safe-semi-auto. FNMI has produced 7,480 M16A3s for the Navy.
I have TM9-1005-319-23&P current to change 8 (the last change out there) and it only lists the M4 and M4A1. This was correct at the time I retired from the Army last October.
As for the trademark issue. I think if Olympic Arms markets a K3B-M4A3 it would be actionable. How many times have other businesses forced a business that wasn't even a like business to stop using a trademark? While none srping immediately to mind, I seen to remember big corporations successfully defending names that were only similar and weren't even being used in a business that was competing. Totally different products IIRC.
Jeff
madmike
Member
I'll accept your evidence as the current latest. Gee, this is fun!
They can ALWAYS sue. Paramount sues anyone who produces anything remotely like anything from Star Trek(tm). If the cost of the suit is enough, no one wants to fight it.
You may see H&K or Bushie bail right before it goes to court. Or agree to royalties.
Or they may fight and win.
Who knows? This has been a most educational thread.
I also found a SWAT site in MI that references an M4A2.
To me, they're "ARs" or "Shorty ARs."
Nuff said.
They can ALWAYS sue. Paramount sues anyone who produces anything remotely like anything from Star Trek(tm). If the cost of the suit is enough, no one wants to fight it.
You may see H&K or Bushie bail right before it goes to court. Or agree to royalties.
Or they may fight and win.
Who knows? This has been a most educational thread.
I also found a SWAT site in MI that references an M4A2.
To me, they're "ARs" or "Shorty ARs."
Nuff said.
Wildalaska
member
Oly Arms and PWA "fine" machining BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH rotflmfao, thats about as hilarious as the chick making guns out of her tummy skin
WildhyperboleisgreatainitAlaska
WildhyperboleisgreatainitAlaska
Nightcrawler
Member
For some reason it irks me when people call military M16s and/or M4s "ARs". I really don't know why; that's a lot more anal than I care to be.
Maybe it's the same reason I can't call a rifle a "gun" anymore...drill sergeants! LOL
- Status